#Legal Scholar

[tmarshconnors]

“The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.”

Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1941 until his death in 1954.

Born: 13 February 1892, Spring Creek Township, Pennsylvania, United States

Died: 9 October 1954 (age 62 years), Washington, D.C., United States

Supreme Court Justice: Robert H. Jackson served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1941 to 1954. He was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nuremberg Trials: Jackson is perhaps best known for his role as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. These trials were historic as they prosecuted major Nazi war criminals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

Legal Career: Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Jackson held several significant positions, including Solicitor General (1938-1940) and Attorney General (1940-1941). His tenure in these roles was marked by his strong defense of New Deal legislation.

Influential Opinions: As a Supreme Court Justice, Jackson authored several important opinions. Notably, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), he wrote the majority opinion that declared it unconstitutional to force public school students to salute the flag, emphasizing the protection of individual rights against government mandates.

Literary Style: Jackson was renowned for his eloquent and clear writing style. His opinions are often cited for their literary quality and persuasive power. His legal writings continue to be studied and admired for their clarity and rhetorical force.

[bisexual-kane]

Low key one of my favorite parts of All In was when Billy Gunn shouted "SUCK MY DICK!" because while WWE holds the copyright to "Suck it!," they legally can't stop him from just saying what the it is.

[dougielombax]

Just leaving these articles here.

Feel free to reblog.

And an additional article from the 9th of September I added later.

Here is a link to the resolution proper.

Also this too. Yeah it’s a week or two late but I somehow missed it back then. I was busy.

[greenishness]

It's honestly so crazy that most women I know who have used hormonal contraception at some point are like yeah I begged my doctor to find an alternative because it made me want to kill myself lol . How can we send people to the moon but not think of a better pregnancy prevention method than pills that make you clinically depressed

[studyblr-perhaps]

The biggest gripe I have with research is that most papers are hidden over a paywall, but we are supposed to know what work has been done and not repeat it (obv). Except, how tf am I do something new if I don't even have any means of knowing what others have done? I know there are a lot of ways to get the papers pirated but man I just want to legally be able to read the papers which are out, you know?

If there is someone who's been in research for a longer time, if you know the reason for all these paywalls or a way around this issue, please enlighten us. This is my official plea for help.

[eternalistic]

A pair of conservative legal scholars argue in a newly released paper that, under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, former President Donald Trump is disqualified to hold office again, echoing a case long made by progressive experts and watchdogs.

In an in-depth analysis of Section 3, William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas contend that the clause "remains of direct and dramatic relevance today"

The clause states that "no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Only a two-thirds vote by both chambers of Congress can lift the disqualification.

In their new paper, Baude and Paulsen wrote that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—known as the insurrection clause—is "self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress."

"It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications," Baude and Paulsen argued, rejecting the notion that the First Amendment shields those who have engaged in or incited insurrection from disqualification under Section 3.

The clause, the pair added, "covers a broad range of former offices, including the presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election."

[quatregats]

Sorry, we provincialized your blorbo. Yeah, we put him in a postcolonial framework and it turned out that he wasn't actually the result of a uniquely rationalistic tradition but actually of a deeply historically-situated framework whose prioritization of the narrative silences other possible epistomologies and ways of knowing. Yeah, it turns out that he can't emerge as a perfectly realized liberal individual without the creation of a reciprocal Other who is excluded from liberal personhood. Yeah, it's going to be like that no matter what, sorry. Do you want some theory or something?

[hyruleanascendant]

"Wait, is that. . ?" She sputters out, leaning down over the grass, hands pushing through the green.

"Ta-da~!" She shows you a frog she found.

"Some studies have reported that, when added to dishes or elixirs, they hasten those who consume them, allowing them to act with much greater agility!"

[designsdefiance]

considering reworking m'seyli to be a scholar but like horse girl edition. she's got a special bond with her chocobo she raised from a chick and instead of a fairy she's supplementing her own healing ability with hashbrown's chococure and Powerful Horsebird Kicks To Enemy Groins. everything she tries to summon inexplicably is shaped like a chocobo. it's so silly but that's her whole thing babey and it matches pictomancer krile's level of silly too. and comes with the bonus of her not looking like shit in her job gear anymore.

[fatehbaz]

In this remarkably rich account of land and profit-making in colonial Calcutta (now Kolkata), Debjani Bhattacharyya traces the transformation of marshes, bogs, and muddy riverbanks into parcels of fixed, bounded, and alienable property under British colonial rule. Framed evocatively as a “history of forgetting” (6), Bhattacharyya details the everyday enactments and contestations of imperial power undertaken by colonial officials and merchants, hydrographers, Indian property owners, urban planners, surveyors, and speculators between the 1760s and 1920. Over this period, the fluid and culturally multivalent spaces of the delta were translated and transformed into “dried urban landscapes of economic value” (12). [...] [T]he economization of space was so encompassing that earlier ways of understanding and inhabiting the delta’s shifting lands and waters were [obscured] [...].

The British thus had to produce landed property both conceptually and materially in a process that proceeded through two entangled registers of power. The first was the legal register, which translated shifting and indeterminate aqueous spaces into apparently solid landed property through modes of legal classification and arbitration. The second register of power concerned hydraulic technologies of drying and draining the landscape (10), which materialized these legal categorizations in the production of urban space. 

By the early twentieth century, these “technologies of property” (5) had produced new lines between land and water in the city and rendered its fluid ecologies, such as marshes and bogs, as valuable “land-in-waiting” (172) for property development and financial speculation. [...] 

[T]he delta’s fluid ecology emerges at times as a limit on the property-making activities of the East India Company and the British Crown [...]. Bhattacharyya’s account highlights the mobility of the delta’s fluid landscape, with water, silt, and mud taking on agentic roles and shaping historical trajectories. [...] [Bhattacharyya] provides a fascinating account of the meanings of rivers and other watery spaces in Bengali cultural life, drawing on folk songs, poetic genres such as the maṅgalkāvya, storytelling, and forms of artistic representation such as painted narrative scrolls. [...] Bhattacharyya recovers forms of relationality and claim-making in the fluid deltaic environment that exceed the representations of colonial cadastral surveys and revenue records. [...] 

[H]owever, Calcutta became increasingly disconnected from its watery past. [...] [There was an] increasing entanglement of the urban land market with infrastructural projects to dry land and control water. These included the excavation of an extensive network of canals; the construction of docks in Khidderpore and the draining of the Maidan [...]. A collective amnesia about Calcutta’s fluid ecologies set the stage for the emergence of a speculative real estate market by the beginning of the twentieth century [...]. This period saw Calcutta’s remaining wetlands and marshes rendered as “land-in-waiting for property development” (169) in a process that continues to the present day.

---

All text above by: Calynn Dowler. “Debjani Bhattacharyya, Empire and Ecology in the Bengal Delta: The Making of Calcutta.” Asian Ethnology Volume 80 Issue 1. 2021. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Former President Donald Trump continues to try to depict Democrats as the “true radicals” on abortion policy. To make his case, though, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has made wildly inaccurate claims.

In a Fox News interview on Wednesday, Trump said, “Hard to believe, they have some states passing legislation where you can execute the baby after birth. It’s crazy.”

FACTS FIRST: Trump’s claim is false. No state has passed or is passing a law that allows the execution of a baby after it is born. Killing a person after birth is illegal in every state. “Every state explicitly criminalizes infanticide,” Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said Thursday. “There is no basis for this claim,” Kimberly Mutcherson, a professor at Rutgers Law School, said Thursday.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a CNN request to specify which states Trump was talking about. Mutcherson said: “The falsity of the claim can be seen in the fact that Trump never identifies such a state.”

There was at least one instance, in an interview with NBC last year, in which Trump specified that he was making the claim about the state of New York in addition to unspecified “other places.” But he was wrong then, too: New York did not pass a law allowing babies to be killed after birth, though false social media posts claimed it had.

Similar false claims have circulated about California. Some of those claims were based on criticism of vague language in an early version of a Democratic state legislator’s 2022 bill that was intended to protect people from being prosecuted over miscarriages, stillbirths and self-managed abortions.

But the vague language was revised before the bill was signed into law.

Months before passage, a Democratic-led legislative committee acknowledged that the early text’s vague use of the phrase “perinatal death” might have inadvertently left open the interpretation that the bill would immunize people from punishment in all cases in which their baby died in the first days of its life, even in cases where the death was caused by acts after the baby was born. The final bill that was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom clarified that the “perinatal death” immunity is specifically for “perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.”

In other words, there is no basis for a claim that California passed a law legalizing post-birth executions.

A REPEATED FALSE CLAIM ABOUT LEGAL SCHOLARS

Trump appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who voted in 2022 to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had guaranteed abortion rights around the country. During his current presidential campaign, he has repeatedly made the false claim that all legal scholars had wanted Roe v. Wade overturned and power over abortion policy returned to individual states.

Trump said it again in the Fox News interview: “I say, let the states decide. This is — every legal scholar wanted this to be where abortion should be.”

FACTS FIRST: Trump’s claim that “every legal scholar” wanted Roe overturned and the power to set abortion policy returned to the states is not even close to true. Many legal scholars wanted Roe preserved, as several of them reiterated in April comments to CNN.

“Any claim that all legal scholars wanted Roe overturned is mind-numbingly false,” Mutcherson, who supported the preservation of Roe, said in April.

“Donald Trump’s claim is flatly incorrect,” Maya Manian, an American University law professor who also did not want Roe overturned, said in April.

Trump’s claim is “obviously not” true, said Ziegler, another scholar who did not want Roe overturned. She said in April: “Most legal scholars probably track most Americans, who didn’t want to overturn Roe. … It wasn’t as if legal scholars were somehow outliers.”

You can read a more detailed fact check of this claim here.

[thenegoteator]

the only succession drama i care about is the case of whether reichsgraf friedrich karl von pückler-limpurg could rightfully inherit his daughter's estate

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

this is the kind of shit i was talking about the other day. no one has any principles. it's just about grabbing as much power as possible.

once upon a time it was "you win some, you lose some"

but now it's "if i can't win then we'll change the rules"

[pilferingapples]

LM 1.2.7

just a stray thought right now, but this :

He admitted that he had committed an extreme and blameworthy act; that that loaf of bread would probably not have been refused to him had he asked for it

is really interesting to me? The idea that Valjean, as crushed and alienated as he was at the point he was making this judgement , still believed the baker would have just given him the loaf-- that can't be rose colored glasses at that point, right? ..mild spoiler territory

And that makes me wonder if the baker even pressed charges, or if this, like Fantine's arrest later, is something that happened because it was Seen , and a cop decided to make the charges regardless of anything the person Valjean actually tried to rob might have said? (I'm not sure if breaking and entering/robbery would have/could have been treated the same way--if anyone has a stronger understanding of the laws in place at this point, let me know?)

-which ..on the one hand def. a lot of what goes on in LM is individuals being bigoted and horrible! but also there's room in the book for a lot of individual kindness and understanding. But the legal system is always awful! and Valjean getting arrested and his family destroyed by law even while the guy he committed the crime against would have been willing to let it go seems like the sort of thing that Fits...

but maybe there's some quirk of the law that would have prevented it ? because the legal system never breaks the law of course /s

[ivygorgon]

📈 Exclusion of Donald Trump from future ballots under Fourteenth Amendment hit 2,000 signers! https://resist.bot/petitions/PGOQGM

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically Section 3, disqualifies individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office. This provision is applicable to former President Donald Trump due to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol. This disqualification operates independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment, or legislation. Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen support this interpretation. It's crucial to uphold the Constitution faithfully, even if it may lead to social unrest. Therefore, it is requested that the name of Donald Trump be excluded from future ballots in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. This action will demonstrate a commitment to protecting our constitutional democracy.

▶ Created on August 25 by @resistbot Action Fund · 2,029 signers in the past 7 days

Text Sign PGOQGM to WhatsApp / Messenger / APPLE MESSAGES / SMS